5 november 2009

Telecom package: Final agreed text

The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers reached agreement on a text tonight. The conciliation process is now over. The acceptance of the text was unanimous by the parliament’s delegation, i.e.: including us Pirates and Greens.
This is the final text (compared to the parliament’s last proposal):

3a. Measures taken by Member States regarding end-users’ access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks shall respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law.

Any of these measures regarding end-user’s access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection and due process. Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. and shall guarantee aA prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.and tThe right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.

To be honest, I never thought this would happen. It is not everything that we would have wanted in the best of worlds, and this is not the end of the fight for a free and open internet. But it is a much bigger step in the right direction than I would have dared to hope for.

We would never have been able to achieve this without all the work that the community of net activists has put in. We have shown that ordinary citizens working together can make a difference. And this is only the beginning.

Re: comment 5
It is clear that prior means that the procedure must take place before anyone is banned.
Fair and impartial means that you get to defend yourself in a proper manner. The only way
to accomplish that is to have proper court proceedings, with proper requirements for evidence
and a proper procedure for appeals.

It is better than I thought this would end, so I suppose it is a victory. But I’m not convinced it even stands the Hadopi test. ”Prior procedure” seems intentionally vague, and could just mean a letter that states that your connection is to be terminated in the near future with information about how to send in your complaints (i.e., exercising that ”right to be heard”).

I am afraid that the logical step after this will be new legislations in the member states that tries to introduce the penalty of denied access to or use of services through electronic communications networks, and i think you are aware of the measures needed to make a court ruling like that effective.

Everyone of us has the right to freedom of expression. This right include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority regardless of frontiers.

A state penalty consisting of a denied access to or use of services through electronic communications networks, is a denial of the above right. But here comes the danger, states are allowed to do that already for protecting moral or for protecting the reputation or rights of others (like copyright for example..).

Look at the issue in a perspective of snail mail: Measures taken by Member States regarding citizens access to or use of postal services shall.. (be completely OK after a trial) Very sick indeed, but with a directive worded like the 3a regarding postal services, that would be OK too.

Congratulation Christian, you have just participated in introducing this new penalty of denying citizens access to the Internet, EU-wide. You have just made the coming ACTA treaty a big favor, paved the way for all EU-states to comply in restricting peoples access to or use of services through electronic communications networks. Congratulations!

This is à good deal. It does not violate the member states right to set up their justice system the way they want. So it is within the scope of article 95 EC.

At the same time it recognises that a prior procedure must take place. This does not exclude HADOPI but it severely restricts how such an agency should operate, and it gives us the right to appeal to the courts.

Sarkozy may have his high authority, but it is going to look like a tribunal, but possibly without the opportunity to have oral proceedings.

An exception for national emergencies is actually not so bad. Not even the European convention stands in the way for à nation to defend itself. Cyber warfare is real.

In the end it shows that if you stand up to principle it will pay off. It is an enormuous victory for the parliament. And it very much shows a necessity to have the pirate movement present in all parlaments in the world.

Regarding net neutrality, let us not forget that with the telecoms package now becoming law, operators will be required to declare which services they are blocking or restricting. Also it means stricter cometition laws and that a new european agency for monitoring the telecoms market now can be setup.

The only ”bad” thing here, Christian, is that the expectations on you is now sky high for the four and a half years left of your term. But you are soon to get company so I’m confident we will see more of this before 2014.

Just saw this @ SvD and could not believe my eyes. You look really happy with yourself in that pic and you should be. I personally cannot remember when any politician in any country has given the constituency so much ‘bang for buck’. I see you as a contender for Politician Championship of the World, the ‘Tussle in Brussels’ being right up there with the ‘Rumble in the Jungle’.

Thank you all for your fight against the political colonization of the net!

Unfortunaley, I think that we lost this battle with the wording in 3a, if the leaked parts from the korean ACTA negotiations are true.

Simply put, if the ISPs have liability for the content that their users transmit, then no measures have to be taken by any member state and ”ECHR” is not applicable.(Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court.)

Iow. the ISPs will be forced to have some kind of 3-strike procedure in their general terms in order not to risk to be taken to court.

Another question arise, will any ISP dare to let encrypted traffic thru their networks,especially if the origin of the packets are unknown?(ie.The anonymization services used during the Iran election, etc.)

Well, we have to take this fight also. But consider this. The parliament have today succeeded to establish end users’ rights against state action. What makes you believe it will pass an ACTA-agreement effectively nullifying this milestone. I hope that all MEPs now have realized that you don’t have to buy anything. And that the commission does also take notice to this strong stance of the parliament.

The best outcome of this would be that the Commission never want to go through this again, and therefore includes safeguards in its initial proposals.

I just hope that we haven’t lost the battle about whether disconnecting users – a kind of virtual improsonement – can be a valid punishment at all in the process. But I’m feeling positive today after reading these news. Not only because this is good for basic democratic rights (not to speak of the respect for politicians), but also because it strengthens the Pirate Party. You now already have one important achievement that you can point to when someone asks you what you have accomplished.

Btw. I think it’s an excellent decision you made to write more in English. It’s an international movement so it’s important that everyone can take part of it.

Simply put, if the ISPs have liability for the content that their users transmit, then no measures have to be taken by any member state and ”ECHR” is not applicable.

This point was discussed a lot by the EP delegation, and it is a perfectly valic concern.

This is the reason why it says ”…and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards…”. If a member state chooses to implement things by letting the ISPs do the dirty work, that is still covered through this wording.

If this has any negative effect in the ACTA negotiations for the pro-copyright zealots, then it’s probably pretty solid. Just to sad the proceedings are behind locked doors, ‘cause it’d be real interesting to see ‘em hop around.

The copyright lobbyists are celebrating with champagne. The parliament has agreed that a ”prior procedure” is all it takes to get someone of the net. I am deeply disappointed with the result.

I don’t understand why everyone is happy, there is nothing to be happy about as I see it. Have the people in this thread read the text, or are they just celebrating because the Pirate party says the compromise is good?

i dont like this at all… I mean, in Germany, i voted for the pirates to fight against those laws. Ok, youre not a german political person, but you´re a pirate! This should mean you are against this sh***…

Ok, it is a littel bit better then the original law. But it is never the less unacceptable! A group of people who could not get a new concept to sell their stuff on the internet / in eth 21th century enforces a law to punish people, who don’t like the strict terms of use?

I mean, 15 years bevore this, when we just had MC and CD, it was legal(and normaly still is) to copy music etc. for your personal interest, as a backup, and even to give these copies to your friends / famalies (in a small range). Now, these companys have enforced a law that it is not legal to copy this stuff, yet to give it to your friends. Seeing that most people don’t hold this stupid law, doing what was legal before (just using another medium instead of MCs), this companys can’t allocate to the new medium and want a new law.

This reminds me so much of dark-future RPGs liek shadowrun. Companys making laws, company lawq goes over national law… strict ”justice” against everyone..

I hoped fromj the pirates to help us against this. But seeing you agreeing in this ”Ok, shut down the internet of everyone who seems to download something illegal” is not acceptable!

The big problem is: The only clue in these cases are Ip-Adresses. And the fact (at least for germany) is this:
– There ARE errors in this. Cycling-errors in the IP-Adress for instance.
– But the courts normaly don’t favour the defenders but the other party, jou have to prove that you didn’t do something! Which is practically not possible.
– Also this whole thing costs money. Lots of money. No problem for a big-a** company or interest-group, but for a simple person who is not guilty (unitl proven (!!) otherwise), it’s not possible. And this Prove is mostly just a log of the form ”IP XYZ has Down / uploaded file ABC at this date and this time”… Well, i dont like this one bit.

For me, i’m dissapointed by this. I would have liked to heaer ”Pirates are against the hole company-driven law”. Thas would be the right way, and maybe the only way to prove you are better than those other political monkeys.

Freestile: So you’d prefer him to not achieve anything but at least go down with guns blazing? That’s the wrong attitude for somebody in parliament. Christian and his collegues achieved a lot, don’t play it down.

To 68: copyright infringement under this current text does NOT classify as an urgency and therefore cannot be exempted from the prior procedure where culpability of the accused has to be demonstrated. Urgency refers to issues of national security or public safety issues. This is huge!!

The text only allows for the prior procedure to exist and not a ”paralel” one. The exemption granted under the duly justified urgency only allows for a derogation to take preventive measures, but Governments will not be able to create in their laws two separate procedures to include what offences they see fit in each of them.

I am very happy with this text that will require several existing laws to change, such as Hadopi. Now a judge signs the order without a need to guarantee a procedure or prove someone guilty. The law will need to be revised to include this!

Congratulations to your successful work, Christian and congratulations to the Council for understanding their duty and obligations.

If we would see Internet cutoffs any time soon based on allegations of copyright breaches or similar, let’s all work together to move the case to the EC Court of Justice. When it has ruled such cutoffs to be illegal, we will have a good precedent to keep shouting lobbyists quiet.

[…] agreement means that member countries will not be allowed to do this. A great success, according to Christian Engström, Swedish Pirate Party MEP: “To be honest, I never thought this would happen. It is not […]

@Freestila: It’s now up to you to make sure Germany does not use this option, or imposes very high standards for shutting down end-users.

I think it’s too bad that there was not enough support for a pirate party in the Bundestag elections, because the fight for Internet users rights cannot take place in Brussels only. It needs to take place in Berlin, Stockholm, Paris, London, Madrid, Rome and all other capitals of Europe and of the world.

To Karamic: it is an achievement as these rights in the convention traditionally only applied to criminal law. (pressumption of innocence, due process, right to be heard, etc). Now they will also apply to administrative procedures which will seriously limit any possible arbitrary decisions by them.

I am really disappointed, the agreement opens up the possibilities for shutting down Internet users without a prior judgment in court. Torstensson has fooled you all. I don’t understand how you could accept this compromise, it’s not a compromise it is still an insult to the parliament. Christian, I know you have the best intentions, but this time it went totally wrong.

Now the telecoms package just needs to be changed to make disconnections completely impossible. There are appropriate ways for dealing with civil offenses, notably fines, the mere idea of disconnection should be scrapped once and for all.

I would like real legislation, but not legislation saying that it is not necessary with a real trial, in a real court, not: ”A prior fair and impartial procedure”. I am afraid that the compromise is contra-productive and that we would be better off without it. I hope you can convince me that i am wrong 😉

To jens a ”prior judicial ruling” does not necessarily imply a trial. Look at Hadopi 2, the judge is only there to sign. I think that the EP has been smart in addressing the issue of the prior procedure.

This text does not force Member States that have in their constitution that it should be a judicial decision to change it (and the same is true the other way around). but under both circumstances both systems will need to hold the prior procedure where the burden of proof falls in the hands of the acuser and not the way around (principle of pressumption of innocence), unlike what another commenter has said.

A reflection: the phrasing is ”Measures taken by Member States regarding end-users’ access”. But what happens if a member state takes measure A that forces ISPs to take measure B that implies disconnecting certain users without a fair trial? Would measure B then be a measure taken by a member state or would it be a measure taken by an ISP?

Freestila, ”i dont like this at all… I mean, in Germany, i voted for the pirates to fight against those laws. Ok, youre not a german political person, but you´re a pirate! This should mean you are against this sh***…”

What exactly do you mean with ”those laws”? You do know the whole point of the telecom package is to regulate the telecom business for your benefit? To get cheaper bills to pay? To get more options? To not get locked-in by an operator by unusually weird and cruel operator defined rules? Et cetera.

That the copyright outfits hijacked the whole thing and managed to fool some politicians with their bull crap is bad, but as long as it is within the rules of the democratic process, everything is as it’s supposed to be, and everyone else has to act accordingly, which in this case meant compromising to get the package through the hoops sinking the package would mean several more years of tax payers money, again, to get the consumers rights to get get what they ought to have had all along in a free market, choices less expenses.

We can be all the idealists we want to, but remember that the pirate party consists of idealists from left to right, so we all have to be somewhat realistic. We have to converge on the basic of what the pirate party stands for and that’s it! No more no less, lest you want to create every kind of internal problem.

So what does the pirate party stand for in this specific case? No case at all? Does the copyright outfits have much of a problem acting in the current, less regulated, market? Are the consumers happy with the current state of not really knowing what’s what? The copyright outfits have forced them self upon several ISPs this year alone within EU borders with the help of the current legislation. Imagine the current legislation coupled with a ratification of the ACTA agreement, and see how that pans out.

Tor, Precisely the EP insisted and succeeded in introducing the words ”and their implementation” to make sure that any other actor that is not the Government but is mandated by a law to deal with the implementation of the measures will be subject to exactly the same conditions as the Member States. This includes ISPs and/or administrative bodies.
Hope it helps!

Blake, about the article, it is a shame that it understands the amendment as only directed to address copyrights issues when that is not correct! it is there to defend fundamental rights of users and put limits to what governments and others can do to restrict them. However, the quote in the article expresses the same opinion I have of the agreed text. That there are heavy requirements to be fulfilled before cutting internet off (principle of innocence, right to privacy, etc) which will require changing many of the 3-strike laws. It does not necessarily forbids them, but it will force these laws to include the prior process to the cutting, will need to prove you’re guilty, and will not be merely sending 3 letters of warning.

[…] zeigt sich Christian Engström, der EU-Abgeordnete der schwedischen Piratenpartei, er schreibt: To be honest, I never thought this would happen. It is not everything that we would have wanted in […]

[…] effectively removing the mechanism for free speech. The text of the amendment is available on Christian Engström’s site . The wording of a “fair and impartial procedure” stops short of guaranteeing a trial, […]

We will (all) see. After I spoke with some lawyers and after all I think it ist not without problems for the PP´s in Europe.

The ”judicial authorities” (even that there may be low effect) is out of the text and the copyright also.

We will(?!) face a case in wich someone got a legal (after an administrasion decision) ”three strike” in Europe. And then someone will(!) ask (”us”) who votet for this law. I am not sure if it we (as the Pirate Party) should really claim this as a victory.

Perhaps(!) it was the best wich could be made in Straßbourg. Perhaps it was the best actually and for a long, long time for the people in Europe.
But the parliament (remember: the place where laws are made; also: we) lost.

Compromises are necessary. I see that Christian votet sometimes with the Greens. He was not in danger to be considered to be an ”extremist” or something like a fundamental outs.

So: it (the law) could have been worse and I thank a lot Christian for the work…. but anyway I am *not sure* if the decision to vote for it was the best idea.

GROUPAMA, a French insurer, was caught in a $200 million software PIRACY case.

GROUPAMA argued that bank secrecy entitled it to limit the scope of Police investigations to a building that was not the place of the infraction… and the General Prosecutor of PARIS (illegally by any standard) ruled that they were right:

@aloa5: It’s important to remember that laws in the EU are made not only in the Parliament but by the Parliament and the Council of ministers together. If the rumours are correct, the german minister responsible did a very good job of moving the Council closer to the Parliament’s position.

All countries need a pirate presence in their parliaments to ensure that not only domestic legislation is good enough, but also to keep an eye on their ministers’ actions in the EU.

The way laws are made is a (great) problem in the EU, that ist correct (before and even after Lissabon). But that ist not the point here.

I am not sure in details about (the new) HADOPI. It seems to me that the difference is that after the third letter there only have to be sent an additional formular like in Germany when someone drove faster then the speed limit (you are guility yes/no?). If this is the whole difference there wopuld be no really difference for French users…. AND then(!) French Pirates would be asked within day´s or weeks what the hell the Pirates in parliament did agree with.

Maybe that this is not true because I don´t know enough about HADOPI but I think that (in this case) we in Germany were asked too. But what shall we answer? ”It was the best we could do” seems to be a very defensive answer. The same answer the second Party (SPD) gave after agreeing to the EU data retention.

So – I do not say that Christian could do better as such (perhaps no chance for another law). The problem for us could (not must) be a result anyway.

@ALOA, are you asking about what changes to HADOPI the EU text will bring?

The Hadopi 2 allows for a fast track judicial decision (that does not involve the accused nor the necessity to prove you committed a crime/felony), this will need to be changed if/when this directive is implemented as Hadopi doesn’t have a prior procedure as included in the EU text.

The EU text makes sure that fast track procedures such as in Hadopi 2 can only happen, as an exception to the rule, in situations of subtatiated urgencies and that, as Christian explains, file sharing cannot fall into that category.

Well actually, when you are not in the majority you cannot have all that you want. The pirate movement is seeking to be the tip of the scale so that it can build a majority for these issues. But we are not there yet.

Anyway the HADOPI 2 system will not last. It’s going to have to be reformed.

Nothing in this text prevents the member states for having a simple procedure if you are prepared to admit to crime.

Alvarez, ”You’re a real cynic. I signed on your support, and you’re happy with a crappy resolution. You’re a phony manipulator.”

Before jumping ship, and this might be a weird notion to some, but try reading the final draft and interpret it to your own advantage, (instead of only interpreting it to the opposition’ supposed advantage.)

@Maria #136
I read different article and spoke to lawyers. As far as I can see arstechnika(1) seems to be right:

quote
A new Internet freedom provision means that(!) European countries can still adopt ”three-strikes” rules targeting P2P users, but they must presume innocence, guard privacy, and allow(!) for judicial appeal….Note what’s different here from the original amendment 138; the right to judicial review is guaranteed on appeal, but the original sanction can be issued by a non-judicial authority like HADOPI.
/quote

So it seems to me making no really difference in the end – facing the pirates the question. Have in addition a look on my next posting – the answer to #137 Johan Tjäder.

You can see my answer to #135 about HADOPI. Nevertheless one word to ”cannot have all that you want”. This is correct (sure) but that is also very complex.

I try to explain why this is very difficult (only for me?). You speak about compromises. The question is what about we must and what about we can and when we should never allow compromises. When someone comes to you speaking about death penalty or about minimum wages about 20Euro/hour. Compromise or not?

It is a sort of defining principles and under wich level of *rights* you never want to go. We have (minimum) three lines here:
1) Internet (or a telephone) is a right wich can only be cut of from judges in serious cases because/and this is a step like beeing convicted to jail (only prisoners can not telephone/interact with others)
2) Internet can be cut of from judges because of ”serious” copyright-infrightment.
3) Internet is like a driving license wich can be forbidden by a township when you drove to fast (three times). You have a right to let a judge look over the case.
4) There are no rights for a use of the internet at all.

The first two lines cracked down yet – and others see this also(1).
Quote:
A sweeping telecom reform package finally cleared the European Parliament, but members abandoned a bid to declare Internet access a fundamental right
/quote

So it´s the (only) question for me if it was necessary – this compromise. Maybe. But if, it was not put over from Engström. He said that ”puts up a strong line of defence against the ‘three strike’ Hadopi law in France….”

We will see but I just think that this is not right. I don´t know the english idiom for this (my dictionary says that someone ”hornswoggled” him … sounds funny whatever it means in detail 😀 ).

To come to the end – after reading some news/blogs/lawyers – I think it would perhaps(!) have been no luxus to say ”no” to this compromise and decide to take line one or two in this case. Maybe the cost were to high – perhaps – when Engström would have lost his seat in ”his” commitee.
(It was a luxus to say ”yes”.)

But to relativise – I don´t want to make a drama out of it. But nevertheless this is my point of view.

@ALOA: #142
Actually this clause will protect the voice service also, where there were no protection before.

Well, the EU acting under Article 95 of the EC treaty cannot stop member states for enacting criminal laws. So if there is a ”three strikes” criminal law in France, then it can be abolished only by the French. It is actually a good thing that we decide our criminal laws in our own countries respectively.

However, this clause forbids the ”strikes”, at least the last one, from being unilateral warnings. The charges must be contestable both before HADOPI and in french courts. They cannot presume you’re guilty. They may not track your traffic or let their ISPs track your traffic.

And it is important to remember that if file sharing is regarded as a crime, the government has the right to put you in jail. They don’t have to disconnect you. They don’t even have to prove you are guilty. It is sufficient to have cause to believe that you are guilty and then they may lock you up pending further investigation. Let’s keep in mind that The Pirate Bay operators were sentenced to one year imprisonment for *aiding* copyright violations. I would say it was a serious fault on the part of the prosecutor, given that outcome, not to have them locked up pending the final verdict, as the claimed violation of law is still continuing. That would have been absolutely legal and in accordance with human rights conventions.

Don’t get me wrong here. My view is that the Stockholm district court had it wrong in its conclusions of law regarding The Pirate Bay, but my point is that will now be easier for the state to put you in jail, then to disconnect you from the internet.

Hadopi has been changed by the constitutional french court to have a judge signing. This is a matter of national law. However, like Johan said, if in your country something is a crime, then you might get caught and be sent to jail. The problem with 3 strike laws as they exist today is that you are suspected of illegal downloading because your bandwith use is too high, for example, and that is enough to get the judge (in case of Hadopi 2) to sign the cutting off. Might be that you have downloaded something legal so, with the new text, by involving the accused in the ”prior process” they will have to be proved guilty of actually downloading something illegal BEFORE being able to cut anyone off.

A judicial review is a universal right in EU law and that is why there is no problem including it for the Council. The problem was the PRIOR judicial ruling since in some countries this power lies also in the hands of police, regulators, prosecutors, etc. So the EU Parliament could not enforce with this directive that these countries harmonise their national crimial systems/constitutions. And I didn’t think about it but after reading johan, I really do think it would have created a bad precendent. We were all supportive of 138 because we agreed with what was written on it but what happens next time there is an amendment that would also require to change your country’s criminal law in a way you fundamentally disagree (take the UK system of invasion of privacy). Who is to say that wouldn’t happen next?

I think people get confused with the reach a EU directive has. ISPs, etc will have no more rights or less than now to intercept communications, nor will have governments. This issue is NOT dealt with here because the EP is not competent to do so. It will not affect that it is a judge or not that takes the prior decision for the same reason. However, what this article in the directive does, is that it provides with minimum limits Governments and implementing actors will have to respect when they decide they want to cut someone off.

”””prior process” they will have to be proved guilty of actually downloading something illegal””

Means nothing else than they ask the involved before. So: sending me one letter, two letters and a third letter with a formular asking me if I did something illegal what e.G. members of the RIAA said that is true. HADOPI is not about bandwith as far as I know.

I´m not an EU-lawyer. But aside reading some law-blogs I am not really a law-ignoramus (I think so).
So I think about EU-law that they can not make criminal law´s. But this IS not a criminal law. If then it would be anyway. A prior ruling makes no difference. That would be unlogic and in addition I never read something like this.

”It will not affect that it is a judge or not that takes the prior decision for the same reason.”

Of course it would make a difference. I don´t know how many judges there are in your country and how the procedure of tickets (e.G. for driving too fast) is. The difference between having a judge or not is really great. Not from the point something reaches the judge. The barrier before getting there and the resistance of the justice would make the difference.

We will see Maria. When this text is through the EP we will look to France. Within day´s they will correct HADOPI – if necessary. And we will see us in this blog, O.K.? 🙂 If you smile I will too.

OK, our politicians, with your approval, are getting rid of that useless bullshit called ”fair trial”.
It will help save a lot of time and make things easier for both parties, like when the londoner police on 25/07/05 decided to get rid of a potential terrorist. They saved a lot of potential lives by overpassing the traditional methods.

”judicial review” is the worst eupemism ever. So no more ”fair trial” but a ”judicial review”

The concept of ”lawful content” was introduced in the Harbour report, which was another of the directives in the Telecoms Package. The conciliation was only about the Trautman report, and it was only the Trautmann report that was voted in plenary this time.

The Harbour report was accepted by the Council in the form that it was voted in the second reading in the Parliament. This was done in the spring of 2009, i.e.: during the previous legislature when I was not a member. I (and the rest of the current Parliament) have not voted on the Harbour report at all.

The purpose of the article that was introduced in the Trautmann report after the conciliation process was to protect users as much as possible against the damage done by the introduction of ”lawful content” in Harbour’s report.

I don’t remember if the phrase appears somewhere in Trautmann as well, but even if it does, the damage was already done, unfortunately.

I voted yes to Trautmann because it at least offers some protection for internet users, and it is better to have something than nothing, regardless of how small or big one may think that ”something” is.